comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 33 minutes ago
Don’t double down jlou.
The point is...
The charges against city relate to several years ago, for things city were already investigated and charged and fined for.
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
Boris’ point isn’t to criticise Liverpool. It’s rather to be critical of uefa. He’s using another example of a club that were under investigation at a similar time city were.
City have already accepted these charges from five years ago. City accepted their punishment - despite your earlier misguided comment about manning up and accepting it. City already did.
You did know this didn’t you? Or are you like many others who think that we are being charged for things happening today?
Now that I’ve explained the point, I’ll ask you a question, do you know exactly what those charges actually are?
Are you prepared to answer that?
(Shall I add a laughing smiley in presumption?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may well have previously been investigated, but due to leaks from der speigel, as to how you circumvented the rules, and the extent to which you broke the rules, UEFA have rightly reopened the case.
Dodgy ponsorship deals with artificially inflated values, which your owners said had been independently valued, which they weren't, to tens of millions of pounds from supposed commercial partners, that had in fact came directly from your owners. They have also been investigating Project Longbow, a scheme in which your owners set up shell companies to avoid declaring the true amount employees were being paid.
So why exactly you think someone posting a 4 year old story, in regard to an investigation into FFP break even rules, which Liverpool were found not guilty of breaking, some how shows any kind of duplicity, or bad practice by UEFA, is laughable.
So as I said, you have no point, beyond deflection, and whataboutery.
comment by Boris 'Fourmidable’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 47 minutes ago
Allow me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tw@t
The language you’re using is presumption.
“Had in fact” for example.
These are allegations. Not facts.
It is tiresome discussing something in which someone presumed guilt prior to a verdict being made.
Liverpool did breach ffp. Liverpool didn’t deny that. What Liverpool did was to cite mitigating circumstances that resulted in them breaching ffp regulations.
The language you use for one club and use for another is telling as to what your stance on this issue is.
But nonetheless, this isn’t actually about Liverpool. Nor is it about deflection.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 7 minutes ago
The language you’re using is presumption.
“Had in fact” for example.
These are allegations. Not facts.
It is tiresome discussing something in which someone presumed guilt prior to a verdict being made.
Liverpool did breach ffp. Liverpool didn’t deny that. What Liverpool did was to cite mitigating circumstances that resulted in them breaching ffp regulations.
The language you use for one club and use for another is telling as to what your stance on this issue is.
But nonetheless, this isn’t actually about Liverpool. Nor is it about deflection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, the article was entirely pointless.
Boris asked should it be reopened, when it was quite obvious that it shouldnt, because it had already been resolved, and no other information had come to light, for UEFA to contemplate doing so.
Which is entirely different to what UEFA are doing in terms of Manchester City.
So have a little think next time before accusing people of missing a point, that quite obviously doesnt exist.
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
---------
what?
so they haven't been reopened despite a five year cut off period.
I would think Man City fans would be glad for the investigations to be reopened so that Man City could put all this to bed.
The city fans dont think man city has done anything wrong so what's the problem?
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 26 seconds ago
I would think Man City fans would be glad for the investigations to be reopened so that Man City could put all this to bed.
The city fans dont think man city has done anything wrong so what's the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its the unfairness of it all.
Der Speigel have exposed how they did it, the extent to how far it went, UEFA are well within their right to reopen the case, so not sure what their problem is.
And simply regurgitating a story regarding an investigation into break even rules against Liverpool 5 years ago is quite simply pathetic, and has no bearing on this story whatsoever.
you are incapable of reading between the lines.
It is clear what your stance on the topic is though. You have determined, without being privy to the facts of the case, that City are guilty.
And if city are cleared. I’ve no doubt that you’ll still believe they are guilty.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
you are incapable of reading between the lines.
It is clear what your stance on the topic is though. You have determined, without being privy to the facts of the case, that City are guilty.
And if city are cleared. I’ve no doubt that you’ll still believe they are guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please, run along now.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 12 minutes ago
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
---------
what?
so they haven't been reopened despite a five year cut off period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to clarify, the decision to refer the case was rushed through in order to beat the five year cut off period
If der Spiegels expose contains accurate details then UEFA should sanction man city heavily.
Fact is they breached FFP back then, the level of breach was stymied by the underhand tactics that Der Spiegel have reported.
UEFA should investigate by way of peeling back all the 3rd party payments and excessive sponsorship from linked firms and see exactly how much the loss would have been.
For city to say that they've already been investigated and shouldn't be again is total balls. New evidence has come to light and they are well within their rights to review FFP compliance or rather extent of non compliance in light of the new evidence.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 12 minutes ago
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
---------
what?
so they haven't been reopened despite a five year cut off period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to clarify, the decision to refer the case was rushed through in order to beat the five year cut off period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the 5 year cut off period hasn't been reached. What's your problem?
I haven’t got a problem. Just explaining the situation
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 18 seconds ago
I haven’t got a problem. Just explaining the situation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All you've done is validate UEFA reopening the investigation as it meets their criteria re the 5 yr rule.
You’ve not got that quite correct. The investigation was reopened well before the cut off point. I was referring to the referral. The usual is period of referral is close season. Uefa pushed this forward as if they didn’t the cut off point would have been reached.
I’m not validating or invalidating anything. That’s not my intention. I’m just explaining what they did.
Usual? doubt they would have had to refer many.. as it is, it's their investigation so they can pretty much run it how they like.
If City hadn't been in breach of FFP then there wouldn't be an investigation.
If they hadn't been reportedly underhand in hiding the extent of breaching FFP then there wouldn't be a reopening or referral.
Your language is better than others. Reportedly is the correct term to use.
I actually do welcome the investigation. Given the accusations aimed at the club it should be investigated, and as with any investigation, both sides should be heard.
So I agree with your earlier comment relating to that.
Likewise, I do have a problem with people assuming guilt before an outcome has been decided. Which many on here and other sites have done. Probably based solely on them simply wanting it all to be true.
Fact is Man City didnt deny that re Mancini being paid by a third party to cover part of his salary.. they said the info was basically stolen
You’ve made your mind up as well then?
Unless you want to point me to where Man City denied Mancini was payed by a third party
Cheating caaants
Next you'll say the breach was due to the bus repairs as we all know a few milkshakes can cause an awful lot of damage
Of course you used the well known company SheikhandVac who billed you 1 billion so these costs were uncontrollable
Can you point me to where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party?
At the time city refused to comment.
But since it was referred a week or so ago City did make a club statement saying all allegations were false. So that would be your denial right there.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 58 minutes ago
Can you point me to where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party?
At the time city refused to comment.
But since it was referred a week or so ago City did make a club statement saying all allegations were false. So that would be your denial right there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When that story first broke about Mancini, and specifically that point, which was last year, Man City didnt deny it. Rather they focused on the source of the info.
"..where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party" yeah and not make UEFA work for it?
After months City have their PR people briefed as to what the company line is.
No surprise that its a cohesive answer after the initial shock to the news.
No evidence has been publicised but the lack of flat out denial of it happening when reported is as dodgy as fack. If it didn't happen they would have denied it straight off the bat, rather than point at illicit gathering of info.
Of course if they denied it and were shown up straight afterwards with the evidence they would be pulled apart from all quarters.
Now the evidence is with UEFA so it won't be publicised until the investigation is done.
Man City literally have nothing to lose by saying the allegations are false while they sweep behind each accusation to make a credible excuse/defence.
Sign in if you want to comment
Liverpool Being Investigated
Page 2 of 3
posted on 19/5/19
Allow me.
posted on 19/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 33 minutes ago
Don’t double down jlou.
The point is...
The charges against city relate to several years ago, for things city were already investigated and charged and fined for.
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
Boris’ point isn’t to criticise Liverpool. It’s rather to be critical of uefa. He’s using another example of a club that were under investigation at a similar time city were.
City have already accepted these charges from five years ago. City accepted their punishment - despite your earlier misguided comment about manning up and accepting it. City already did.
You did know this didn’t you? Or are you like many others who think that we are being charged for things happening today?
Now that I’ve explained the point, I’ll ask you a question, do you know exactly what those charges actually are?
Are you prepared to answer that?
(Shall I add a laughing smiley in presumption?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may well have previously been investigated, but due to leaks from der speigel, as to how you circumvented the rules, and the extent to which you broke the rules, UEFA have rightly reopened the case.
Dodgy ponsorship deals with artificially inflated values, which your owners said had been independently valued, which they weren't, to tens of millions of pounds from supposed commercial partners, that had in fact came directly from your owners. They have also been investigating Project Longbow, a scheme in which your owners set up shell companies to avoid declaring the true amount employees were being paid.
So why exactly you think someone posting a 4 year old story, in regard to an investigation into FFP break even rules, which Liverpool were found not guilty of breaking, some how shows any kind of duplicity, or bad practice by UEFA, is laughable.
So as I said, you have no point, beyond deflection, and whataboutery.
posted on 19/5/19
comment by Boris 'Fourmidable’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 47 minutes ago
Allow me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tw@t
posted on 19/5/19
The language you’re using is presumption.
“Had in fact” for example.
These are allegations. Not facts.
It is tiresome discussing something in which someone presumed guilt prior to a verdict being made.
Liverpool did breach ffp. Liverpool didn’t deny that. What Liverpool did was to cite mitigating circumstances that resulted in them breaching ffp regulations.
The language you use for one club and use for another is telling as to what your stance on this issue is.
But nonetheless, this isn’t actually about Liverpool. Nor is it about deflection.
posted on 19/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 7 minutes ago
The language you’re using is presumption.
“Had in fact” for example.
These are allegations. Not facts.
It is tiresome discussing something in which someone presumed guilt prior to a verdict being made.
Liverpool did breach ffp. Liverpool didn’t deny that. What Liverpool did was to cite mitigating circumstances that resulted in them breaching ffp regulations.
The language you use for one club and use for another is telling as to what your stance on this issue is.
But nonetheless, this isn’t actually about Liverpool. Nor is it about deflection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, the article was entirely pointless.
Boris asked should it be reopened, when it was quite obvious that it shouldnt, because it had already been resolved, and no other information had come to light, for UEFA to contemplate doing so.
Which is entirely different to what UEFA are doing in terms of Manchester City.
So have a little think next time before accusing people of missing a point, that quite obviously doesnt exist.
posted on 19/5/19
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
---------
what?
so they haven't been reopened despite a five year cut off period.
posted on 19/5/19
I would think Man City fans would be glad for the investigations to be reopened so that Man City could put all this to bed.
The city fans dont think man city has done anything wrong so what's the problem?
posted on 19/5/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 26 seconds ago
I would think Man City fans would be glad for the investigations to be reopened so that Man City could put all this to bed.
The city fans dont think man city has done anything wrong so what's the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its the unfairness of it all.
Der Speigel have exposed how they did it, the extent to how far it went, UEFA are well within their right to reopen the case, so not sure what their problem is.
And simply regurgitating a story regarding an investigation into break even rules against Liverpool 5 years ago is quite simply pathetic, and has no bearing on this story whatsoever.
posted on 19/5/19
Subscribed.
posted on 19/5/19
you are incapable of reading between the lines.
It is clear what your stance on the topic is though. You have determined, without being privy to the facts of the case, that City are guilty.
And if city are cleared. I’ve no doubt that you’ll still believe they are guilty.
posted on 19/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
you are incapable of reading between the lines.
It is clear what your stance on the topic is though. You have determined, without being privy to the facts of the case, that City are guilty.
And if city are cleared. I’ve no doubt that you’ll still believe they are guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh please, run along now.
posted on 19/5/19
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 12 minutes ago
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
---------
what?
so they haven't been reopened despite a five year cut off period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to clarify, the decision to refer the case was rushed through in order to beat the five year cut off period
posted on 19/5/19
If der Spiegels expose contains accurate details then UEFA should sanction man city heavily.
Fact is they breached FFP back then, the level of breach was stymied by the underhand tactics that Der Spiegel have reported.
UEFA should investigate by way of peeling back all the 3rd party payments and excessive sponsorship from linked firms and see exactly how much the loss would have been.
For city to say that they've already been investigated and shouldn't be again is total balls. New evidence has come to light and they are well within their rights to review FFP compliance or rather extent of non compliance in light of the new evidence.
posted on 19/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 12 minutes ago
These have now been reopened, despite a five year cut off point - hence why it has been referred now - just before the five year cut off point.
---------
what?
so they haven't been reopened despite a five year cut off period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to clarify, the decision to refer the case was rushed through in order to beat the five year cut off period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the 5 year cut off period hasn't been reached. What's your problem?
posted on 19/5/19
I haven’t got a problem. Just explaining the situation
posted on 19/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 18 seconds ago
I haven’t got a problem. Just explaining the situation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All you've done is validate UEFA reopening the investigation as it meets their criteria re the 5 yr rule.
posted on 19/5/19
You’ve not got that quite correct. The investigation was reopened well before the cut off point. I was referring to the referral. The usual is period of referral is close season. Uefa pushed this forward as if they didn’t the cut off point would have been reached.
I’m not validating or invalidating anything. That’s not my intention. I’m just explaining what they did.
posted on 19/5/19
Usual? doubt they would have had to refer many.. as it is, it's their investigation so they can pretty much run it how they like.
If City hadn't been in breach of FFP then there wouldn't be an investigation.
If they hadn't been reportedly underhand in hiding the extent of breaching FFP then there wouldn't be a reopening or referral.
posted on 19/5/19
Your language is better than others. Reportedly is the correct term to use.
I actually do welcome the investigation. Given the accusations aimed at the club it should be investigated, and as with any investigation, both sides should be heard.
So I agree with your earlier comment relating to that.
Likewise, I do have a problem with people assuming guilt before an outcome has been decided. Which many on here and other sites have done. Probably based solely on them simply wanting it all to be true.
posted on 19/5/19
Fact is Man City didnt deny that re Mancini being paid by a third party to cover part of his salary.. they said the info was basically stolen
posted on 19/5/19
You’ve made your mind up as well then?
posted on 19/5/19
Unless you want to point me to where Man City denied Mancini was payed by a third party
posted on 19/5/19
Cheating caaants
Next you'll say the breach was due to the bus repairs as we all know a few milkshakes can cause an awful lot of damage
Of course you used the well known company SheikhandVac who billed you 1 billion so these costs were uncontrollable
posted on 20/5/19
Can you point me to where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party?
At the time city refused to comment.
But since it was referred a week or so ago City did make a club statement saying all allegations were false. So that would be your denial right there.
posted on 20/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 58 minutes ago
Can you point me to where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party?
At the time city refused to comment.
But since it was referred a week or so ago City did make a club statement saying all allegations were false. So that would be your denial right there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When that story first broke about Mancini, and specifically that point, which was last year, Man City didnt deny it. Rather they focused on the source of the info.
"..where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party" yeah and not make UEFA work for it?
After months City have their PR people briefed as to what the company line is.
No surprise that its a cohesive answer after the initial shock to the news.
No evidence has been publicised but the lack of flat out denial of it happening when reported is as dodgy as fack. If it didn't happen they would have denied it straight off the bat, rather than point at illicit gathering of info.
Of course if they denied it and were shown up straight afterwards with the evidence they would be pulled apart from all quarters.
Now the evidence is with UEFA so it won't be publicised until the investigation is done.
Man City literally have nothing to lose by saying the allegations are false while they sweep behind each accusation to make a credible excuse/defence.
Page 2 of 3